Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1988 (7) TMI 313

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng 84.82 of the tariff on the strength of Note 6 to Chapter 84 of the Tariff. The prayer of the appellants is that the goods should be reclassified as parts of cycles under Heading 87.12 read with Heading 87.14 of the Tariff which, read with exemption Notifications No. 62/86-C.E., dated 10-02-1986 and 162/86-C.E., dated 01-03-1986, would entitle them to nil rate of duty. On referring to Note 6 of Chapter 84, relied on by the department, we find that it reads as under :- "6. Heading No. 84.82 applies, inter alia, to polished steel balls, the maximum and minimum diameters of which do not differ from the nominal diameter more than 1% or by more than 0.05 mm, whichever is less. Other steel balls are to be classified in Heading No. 73.26....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fair chance to the department to go into their fresh plea and fresh evidence. 2. The Ld. Jt. C.D.R. opposed the appellants' request for remand. She stated that the appellants had been given more than adequeate opportunity to explain their case before the Assistant Collector. She invited our attention to Paragraph 13 of the Assistant Collector's Order which showed that the Assistant Collector specifically asked the appellants whether their steel balls were polished and whether they conformed to the size specifications mentioned in Note 6 to Chapter 84. The appellants did not care to reply. Later on 20-01-1987, the Superintendent personally visited their factory. The appellants gave him some information regarding sizes of their steel ....